Beck, Jeff. “Report from the Field: PubMed Central, an XML-based Archive of Life Sciences Journal
Articles.” Presented at International Symposium on XML for the Long Haul: Issues in the Long-term Preservation
of XML, Montréal, Canada, August 2, 2010. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on XML for the Long Haul: Issues in the
Long-term Preservation of XML. Balisage Series on Markup Technologies, vol. 6 (2010). https://doi.org/10.4242/BalisageVol6.Beck01.
International Symposium on XML for the Long Haul: Issues in the Long-term Preservation
of XML August 2, 2010
Balisage Paper: Report from the Field: PubMed Central, an XML-based Archive of Life Sciences Journal
Technical Information Specialist
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine
(NLM), National Institutes of Heath (NIH)
Jeff has been involved in the PubMed Central project at NLM since 2000. He has been
working journal publishing since the early 1990.
Author's contribution to the Work was done as part of the Author's official duties
as an NIH employee and is a Work of the United States Government. Therefore, copyright
may not be established in the United States. 17 U.S.C. § 105. If Publisher intends
to disseminate the Work outside the U.S., Publisher may secure copyright to the extent
authorized under the domestic laws of the relevant country, subject to a paid-up,
nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide license to the United States in such copyrighted
work to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public and perform
publicly and display publicly the work, and to permit others to do so.
PubMed Central (PMC) is an XML-based archive of life sciences journal literature at
U.S. National Institutes of Heath that allows public access to full-text journal articles.
The archive was created in 2000 and has grown steadily to over 2 million records.
project has been successful in part because of the strict XML control and the flexibility
that PMC givesre its submitters.
This paper gives an overview of the PMC data evaluation process; the XML processing
model; the PMC philosophy toward XML use, including use of the NLM DTD, XML Taggging
usability or reusablilty of the XML, public XML tools, and our people; and some challenges
we continue to face maintaining the archive.
PubMed Central [PMC01] is the U.S. National Institutes
of Health's free digital archive of full-text biomedical and life sciences journal
Content is stored in XML at the article level. Structures above article (issues, volumes,
are built as collections of articles. The content is displayed dynamically from the
every time that a user retrieves an article. In that respect, every request confirms
archival copy is still functional.
PMC contains over 2 million article records from over 1,000 titles with 10-15,000
records being added each month. On average, 600,000-700,000 articles are retrieved
unique users each day [PMC02].
PubMed Central was started in 1999 to allow free full-text access to journal articles.
Participation by journals is voluntary. From the beginning there has always been a
that participating journals provide their content to NCBI marked up in some "reasonable"
XML format along with the highest-resolution images available, PDF files (if available),
supplementary material. Complete details on the PMC's file requirements are available
A discussion of what makes a "reasonable" SGML or XML format could be an interesting
for another paper. For now, "reasonable" means that there is sufficient granularity
source model to map those elements critical to the understanding of the article (and/or
functioning in the PMC system) from the original article to the appropriate place
in the PMC XML
The Data Evaluation Process
Journals joining PMC must pass two tests. First, the content must be approved for
collection [NLM01]. Essentially this is just a check to
be sure that the content is "in scope" for a medical library.
Next the journal must go through a technical evaluation to "be sure that the journal
routinely supply files of sufficient quality to generate complete and accurate articles
without the need for human action to correct errors or omissions in the data." [PMC03]
For the evaluation, a journal supplies a sample set of articles (at least 50). These
articles are put through a series of automated and human checks to ensure that the
valid and that it accurately represents the article content. There is a set of "Minimum
Requirements" that must be met before the evaluation proceeds to the more human-intense
content accuracy checking [PMC04]. These minimum criteria
are listed briefly below:
Each sample package must be complete: all required data files (XML/SGML, PDF if
available, image files, supplementary data files) for every article in the package
be present and named correctly.
All XML files must conform to an acceptable journal article DTD.
All XML/SGML files must parse according to their DTD.
Regardless of the XML/SGML DTD used, the following metadata information must be
present and tagged with correct values in every sample file:
Journal ISSN or other unique Journal ID
Copyright statement (if applicable)
License statement (if applicable)
Issue number (if applicable)
Pagination/article sequence number
Issue-based or Article-based publication dates. Articles submitted to PMC must
contain publication dates that accurately reflect the journal’s publication
All image files for figures must be legible, and submitted in high-resolution TIFF
or EPS format, according to the PMC Image File Requirements.
These seem like simple and obvious things - xml files must be valid - but the minimum
requirements have greatly reduced the amount of rework that the PMC Data Evaluation
to do. Certainly it helps to be explicit about even the most obvious of things.
PMC Processing Model
The PMC processing model is diagrammed in Fig. 1. For each article, we
receive a set of files that includes the text in SGML or XML, the highest resolution
available, a PDF file if one has been created for the article, and any supplementary
or supporting data. The text is converted to the current version of the NLM Archiving
Interchange DTD [JATS01], and the images are converted
to a web-friendly format. The source SGML or XML, original images, supplementary data
PDFs, and NLM XML files are stored in the archive. Articles are rendered online using
XML, PDFs, supplementary data files, and the web-friendly images.
This processing model seems obvious now, but this is not how the content was always
handled. The early PMC processing model is shown in Fig. 2.
The images, PDFs, and supplementary material were handled in much the same way, but
they are not interesting for this paper so I will just be concentrating on the text
from now on. The SGML or XML was loaded into a database in its native format. When
was requested by a user, the original text was pulled from the database and run through
piece of proprietary software to render it in HTML on the web. It is easy to see that
not a scalable solution - especially if we were planning for any kind of success.
As we started getting more and more submitters, it became obvious that we needed to
the processing hit of conversion to a single text format up front and allow the database
rendering system concentrate on only one type of XML (Fig. 3). We created the
pmc-1.dtd [PMC05], which was based on the first
two submission DTDs that we had to PMC: keton.dtd, an SGML DTD somehow descended from
ISO12083, and the BioMed Central article.dtd, an XML DTD that was very similar.
The pmc-1.dtd was written to simplify access to full-text articles online. It was
and simple DTD that soon showed its limitations as we started to convert more submission
formats into it. It grew quickly, and quickly grew unwieldy. At this point, work began
new DTD that became the NLM Archiving and Interchange Tag Suite [Beck01].
There are a number of things in our XML Philosophy, which may at first seem contradictory,
that have lead to the success of PMC and the manageability of the article ingest work.
general, we have found a balance between strictness and flexibility that allows us
to keep a
certain amount of control but not be too restrictive on our submitters.
Some Strict Things
The first thing we are strict about is that we do a complete review of any new DTD
which content is being submitted, as described above. We do not take articles in HTML.
We also do a complete review of sample articles for each new journal to be sure that
the content provider is able to provide content that is
structurally and semantically correct.
Another thing we are strict about is that all content must be valid according to the
in which it was submitted - not just during data evaluation but in the ongoing production
process as well. This seems like an obvious one, but there was a surprising amount
of controversy about this in the early days of PMC, and we still get invalid files.
usually arise now because the submitter has made a DTD change (as simple as adding
character entity to the DTD) without telling us or sending an updated DTD.
Also, we do not fix text; all content changes must be made by the submitter, and the
content must be resubmitted.
Some Flexible Things
Some things we are not so strict about, which reduces some of the burden on our
submitters. First, we don't require all content to be in our format or to follow our
rules. We don't force updates of content to latest DTD version, and we generally follow
journal style where it does not interfere with our systems.
We use the NLM Archiving and Interchange DTD as the format for all articles loaded
the PMC database. This model was created specifically for archiving article content.
designed to be an "easy target to hit" when transforming content from the over 40
input models that we receive content in. Currently we are writing content into version
We do not migrate all content to each new version of the NLM DTD when it comes out.
system is robust enough to handle content from version 1.0 of the DTD through version
so we are not constantly churning the data.
We manage all of the versions of the DTD with an
XML Catalog, which we also use to manage all of the input DTDs (SGML and XML). We
all mappings of PUBLIC and SYSTEM IDs for any DTD that we use in the XML catalog on
Linux machines and then create other catalogs from it each time it is updated. We
SGML Catalog for the SGML tools that we use; a single "Oxygen" catalog that
everyone on the team can use over the network with the XML editor; and a copy of the
catalog that refers to
http-based copies of the DTDs for PMC International sites. The XML Catalog is an essential
piece of the PMC system.
PMC Tagging Style
Next, we've defined a set of rules for objects within articles that is more restrictive
than the DTD. This allows us to have normalized structures (figures, tables, contributors)
in articles for ease of processing and rendering. We call these rules the PMC Tagging
and all articles must "pass style" before being loaded to the database. They are documented
in the PMC Tagging Guidelines [PMC06].
(Re)Usability of XML
Finally, our XML must be useable by others. The NLM XML that we create from whatever
submitted to us is always available to the submitting publisher (the content owner),
subset of the articles that are Open Access are available to anyone for download through
PMC Open Archives Service [PMC07]. This keeps us
honest. We can't allow ourselves to take shortcuts with the data. All articles must
according to the public NLM DTD version that they reference, and we only use Processing
Instructions for instructions about processing.
Another thing that has been helpful is that we share tools we've built with our
submitters. The more help we can give to people sending us content, the cleaner the
is, and the easier it is for us to process. Reducing or eliminating correction cycles
greatly reduces cost and stress on the PMC team.
PMC Tagging Guidelines [PMC06] - This
is a document that describes the PMC Tagging Style mentioned above. We first created
the guidelines as an internal document that we would use to keep track of any tagging
rules we set up to keep our XML as normal as possible. As we got more and more
questions from providers about how structures should be tagged, we decided to share
our internal document.
The DTD allows many ways to tag certain structures, but we do
have a preference for many of them, and sharing them has been helpful both for us
for PMC submitters. While we don't require content that is submitted to PMC be "to
style", we certainly aren't going to turn it away.
PMC StyleChecker [PMC08] - This is a
tool that applies the rules defined in the Tagging Guidelines. It is an XSL transform
that reviews each article and reports what it finds. This is the same transform that
we have inline in our production process after validation against the DTD to confirm
that the structures withing the articles we are loading into the database meet our
standards for tagging.
It is available as an online tool that users can upload one article at a time or
as a set of stylesheets that data providers can build into their workflow [PMC09].
Online SGML Validator [PMC10] - This is a tool that
validates SGML against the SGML DTDs that we have in the PMC system as long as the
or SYSTEM ID is recognized in our SGML Catalog file. That is, as long as we have set
up the particular SGML DTD for ingest in our system.
Online XML Validator [PMC11] - This is a tool that
validates any XML file whose SYSTEM ID is resolvable on the system or whose PUBLIC
SYSTEM ID is mapped in our XML Catalog file.
PMC Article Previewer [PMC12] - This is a
tool that runs an article through a PMC ingest workflow. First the SGML or XML is
validated against the DTD per the rules given above for the SGML and XML validators.
Then, if we recognize the DTD and have a conversion built for it, the article runs
through the XSL transform to normalized PMC XML. This output is validated against
output DTD and is checked with the StyleChecker. If successfull at all of these steps,
the article is displayed on a page in PMC display format so that the publisher can
preview the article. Also, he has a good idea that his article will be ingested into
PMC with no problems.
The Article Previewer requires users to login with a "My NCBI" account [NCBI01] because the
content stays on the database until the user removes it.
Finally, there has to be some acknowledgment of the people who work on the project.
have a fantastic set of programmers that builds us some very nice software, and we
have a good
group of Content Managers who marshall the content through the workflow and deal with
exceptions and communicate with the publishers. But, we have a group in the middle
and maintains the XSL transforms.
It is not easy to find the right people for this group. Our document conversion writers
need to have the strong attention to detail, unending curiosity, and a desire to always
find a better way to do things of a good programmer. But, they also need to live in
a world where mixed-content does not frightent them. Because we are writing transforms
to maintain the meaning and intend of the origingal article, we slip out of the black-and-white
prgrammer world into a world of grays. We need to represent the article that was submitted
to the archive - and not necessarily the file that was submitted.
A successful PMC document conversion writer lives with a foot in both camps: the world
of the wants and desires of the content owners and the rule-driven world of people
who build and run large systems. This is not something that is unique to PubMed Central
by any means, but it does surprise some people that our group is made up of people
who studied English, Art, and Library Sciences rather than Systems Design, COBOL or
Because we work exclusively with documents and document XML, I have found that it
easier to start with a (technically oriented) person with a publishing or printing
and teach them how to write a transform than to take a brilliant programmer and teach
to think about documents.
Some Challenges: When Print Goes Away
There are still a few things that give us problems in PMC. First, because of the rapid
changes in article publishing since the invention of the Internet, journal publishing
have started to change. A business that had a pretty stable model of articles in issues
printed and mailed on a periodic schedule has been shifting to publishing on a continuous
basis - with articles made available online as soon as they are ready and then collected
print issues after some time (or not collected and printed at all).
Early PMC was created based on the issue model, and we have had to be flexible to
handle these changes.
One thing that we have done to remain flexible here to allow us to deal with this
continuous publication model is to be very strict about publication
dates in articles. Depending on the publication model of a journal, an article may
publication date (for traditional print-based journals) or an article-level publication
and a collection-level publication date (for articles that are published online and
collected into a print or online issue. volume, or collection. See the essay on
<pub-date> in the Tagging Guidelines [PMC06].
The rise of the internet has also brought about another "Continuous publication" idea,
and that is continuous publication of the same document - or updates to an article.
We have not seen too much of this in PMC yet, but we have been preparing ourselves.
Each article in the PMC database is assigned an ArticleID and an ArticleInstanceID.
Any new version of an article creates a new ArticleInstance, and all ArticleInstances
for a given article have the same ArticleID. This allows us to store multiple versions
of articles, retrieve the latest (by ArticleID), and to retrieve any version (by ArticleInstanceID).
Fortunately, how the Journal Publishers will handle will need to be decided by the
The success we have had at PMC has really been due to a combination of factors including
our strictness to upholding the XML models that we use, our flexibility (to a point)
that we have with our content providers, the tools that we've put together to make
our jobs and the jobs of our content providers easier, and teh fine people we have
working on the team. To be fair, it is also nice to have the resources of the National
Center for Biotechnology Information and the National Library of Medicine behind us
as well as the support of the NIH in general, who have declared that copies of all
peer-reviewed articles that report on NIH-funded research must be deposited to PubMed
Central and made available within 12 months of the publication date [Beck02]. I have to include that just to be fair.
This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Library
Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information.